ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad V. Marri Swaroopa, Secunderabad, Secunderabad

ITA 1339/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2435 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SWAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Right to appeal
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1339/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), HYDERABAD. VS. MARRI SWAROOPA, SECUNDERABAD. PAN AGHPM 6698 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT. N. SWAPNA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 21-09-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-10-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) - 4, HYD ERABAD, DATED 11/09/2015 FOR AY 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 ON 27/05/2011 ADMITTING AN IN COME OF RS. 2,38,000/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT T HE ACT) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH, THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD PROPERTY WORT H RS. 52,54,700/- ON 27/01/2010 AND NO CAPITAL GAINS WERE ADMITTED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY BEARIN G NO. 1-9-64 TO 66, 2 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD PEDDA THOKATTA, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD WAS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY HER HUSBAND MR. B.N. REDDY VIDE GIFT DE ED BEARING NO. 677 OF 1981, DATED 02/03/1981. THE AO NOTED THAT DU E TO FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO SALE C UM GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WITH VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND OTHERS O N 28/09/2007 AND RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 46,00,000/- FROM THEM AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THEY HAVE BACKED FROM THE TRANSACTION AND DEMANDED THE MONEY BACK. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS THE CASH WAS NOT AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND TO RAISE A BANK LOAN, ASSESSEE ALONG W ITH GPA HOLDERS HAD TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF ASSESSE ES HUSBAND MR. B.N. REDDY VIDE SALE DEED DATED 27/01/2010 AND RECE IVED LOAN OF RS. 50 LAKHS FROM REPCO HOMES AND PAID THE MONEY BACK T O THE GPA HOLDERS. ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ABO VE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE FOR THE SAKE OF CREATION OF A DOCUMENT TO ENABLE THE BANK TO SANCTION LOAN. HOWEVER, AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS O F THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 50,05,850/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 FURTHER, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED RENTAL INCOME IN HER RETURN OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,20,0 00/- WHEREAS THE GROSS RENT RECEIVED WAS RS. 7,14,000/-. THE AO AFTE R GIVING STANDARD ALLOWANCE OF 30% TOWARDS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, T HE BALANCE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,05,800/- WAS ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ADDITIONA L GROUNDS AND MADE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENT DATED 25-01-2010 THOUGH THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT A PARTY (TRANSFEROR) FOR THE SAID TRANSACTION A ND SHE CEASED 3 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD TO BE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN THE LIGHT OF REGISTE RED DOCUMENT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 28-09-2007. 2. ALTERNATIVELY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CL AIM MADE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PROPERTY WAS GIFTE D BY HER HUSBAND ON 02-03-1981 AND THE SAME IS TRANSFERRED T O HER HUSBAND BY WAY OF SALE DEED AND THERE IS NO GAIN AC CRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS TRANSACTION. HENCE, THE SAME I S LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SUBMISSIONS FROM THE ABOVE GROUND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE POINT RAISED IN ADDITIONAL GROUND WOULD GO TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE I.E. WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR TAX ON CAPITAL GAIN IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENT DATED 25-01-2010 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TRANSFEROR O F SAID PROPERTY. AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS OF LEGAL IN NATURE, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) MAY CONSIDER TH E REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. TH E REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IS SUPPORTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF N ATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (229 ITR 383-387). IN THA T DECISION THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER- . 'UNDER S.254 THE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH TH E PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINGS FIT. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WITH APPEALS IS THUS EXPRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TE RMS. THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TA XING AUTHORITIES IS TO ASSESS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILIT Y OF AN ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESUL T OF A JUDICIAL DECISION GIVEN WHILE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL, IT IS FOUND THAT ANON-TAXABLE ITEM IS TAXED OR A PE RMISSIBLE DEDUCTION IS DENIED, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RAISING THAT QUESTION BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO LONG AS THE RELEVAN T FACTS ARE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THAT ITEM. THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254 ONLY TO DECIDE TIRE G ROUNDS WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). BOTH THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL/CROSS OBJ ECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE PREVENT ED FROM CONSIDERING QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER'. AS ALREADY SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED B Y THE APPELLANT IS GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE I.E., I N THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN T HE LIGHT OF THE 4 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT THE SAME MAY BE CONSI DERED FOR ADMISSION AND THE ISSUE RAISED THROUGH ADDITIONAL G ROUND MAY BE DECIDED. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS: THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN TIRE PRESENT APPEAL IS LEVY O F TAX ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF SALE TRANSACTION E FFECTED THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED BY SRI VEERA MALLA KIS TAIAH AND 4 OTHERS IN FAVOUR OF SRI M. BADRI NARAYANA REDDY HUS BAND OF SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA. BEFORE MAKING DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS FOR KIND PERUSAL OF THE HON 'BLE CIT(A) WHICH WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. A) REGISTERED GIFT DEED DATED 22-03-1981 EXECUTED B Y SRI MARRI BADRINARAYANA REDDY IN FAVOUR OF SMT. MARRI SWAROOP A W/O SRI MARRI BADRINARAYANA REDDY, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD . \ B) REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 27-08 -2007 EXECUTED BY SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA W/O SRI M.BADRINARA YANA REDDY IN FAVOUR OF SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAN AND 4 O THERS. C) REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010 EXECUTED B Y SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS IN FAVOUR OF SRI M. BADRI NARAYANA REDDY, SECUNDERABAD. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTS A RE SUBMITTED HEREUNDER: A. GIFT DEED DATED 22-03-1981: FROM THE GIFT DEED I T CAN BE SEEN THAT THE DONOR WAS MARRI BADRINARAYANA REDDY, SECUNDERABAD AND THE DONEE WAS SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA W/O SRI M. BADRI NARAYANA REDDY, SECUNDERABAD. THE DONOR GI FTED HOUSE BEARING NO.1-9-64 TO 66 SITUATED AT PEDDA TOK ATTA, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD ADMEASURING AN AREA OF 426 SQ. YARDS WITH EXISTING TILED HOUSE VALUED AT RS. 35,00 0/-. THE GIFT DEED WAS REGISTERED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES ON 22-03- 1981 AS DOCUMENT NO.677/81. THUS, SMT MARRI SWAROOPA W/O SRI M.BADRI NARAYANA R EDDY THE ASSESSEE BECAME ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BECA USE OF THE DOCUMENT NO.677/81 DATED 22-03-1981. B. REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 28-07 -2007: SMT MARRI SWAROOPA THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE SAID PROPE RTY TO SRI VEERA MALIA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS VIDE REGISTERED D OCUMENT NO.764/2007 DATED 28-07-2007. THE SALE CONSIDERATIO N WAS 5 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD MENTIONED AS RS 46 LAKHS. THUS, THE PROPERTY WAS CO NVEYED TO THE SALE CUM GPA HOLDERS WITH ABSOLUTE RIGHTS AS ME NTIONED AT PARAS 1 TO 6 OF PAGE 4 AND 5 OF THE SAID DOCUMENT. C. REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010: SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SRI M.BA DRI NARAYANA REDDY THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 111 L/210 DATED 25-01-2010. THE EXECUTANTS OF THE SALE DEED W ERE SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS I.E., SALE CUM GP A HOLDERS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 52,54,700/-. TAKING THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE VARIOUS COMMENTS. SUBMISSIONS ARE MADE WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENTS OF THE AO CONTAINE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER: 1. AT PARA 2.2. THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO TRANSA CTION NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E., DOCUMENT DATED 27-01-2010 AND PROCEEDED FURTHER BY MAKING CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS: A. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA HAS TRA NSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO HER HUSBAND SRI B.N.REDDY THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED (OBVIOUSLY DOCUMENT DATED 27-01-2010) AND ALL THE RIGHTS WERE TRANSFERRED TO SRI B.N.REDDY. THE AO FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS TO RAISE LOAN FRO M THE BANKS AND AS PER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, TRANSFER O F RIGHTS OVER A PROPERTY TANTAMOUNT TO SALE OF PROPERTY ONLY. AS ALREADY SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENT DATED 27-01-2010 WAS EXECUTED BY SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS I .E., SALE CUM GPA HOLDERS AND SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA WAS NOT A P ARTY IN THE SAID DOCUMENT. SHE DID NOT SIGN THAT DOCUMENT. IN THE RECITAL FOR CLARITY SAKE HER NAME WAS MENTIONED AND SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS MENTIONED AS AGREEMENT CUM GPA HOLDERS, THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SRI B. N. REDDY. WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASON FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY THE FACT WAS THAT SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS ONLY SOLD THE PRO PERTY TO SRI B.N.REDDY. AS ALREADY MENTIONED SMT.MARRI SWAROOPA WAS NOT A PART (TRANSFEROR) AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DOCUMEN T. THUS, IT CAN NEVER BE SAID THAT SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA TRANSFER RED HER RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY TO SRI B.N.REDDY THROUGH D OCUMENT DATED 27-01-2010 AND THEREFORE SHE CANNOT BE IDENTI FIED AS SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. B. AT PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO OBSERV ED THAT SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA RECEIVED THE MONEY AS SRI B.N.R EDDY HAS TAKEN THE LOAN FROM REPCO HOMES AND TRANSFERRED DIR ECTLY TO SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND OTHERS. FURTHER, 'THE AO O BSERVED THAT SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA HAS TAKEN ADVANCE FROM SRI VEER A MALLA 6 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD KISTAIAH AND OTHERS AND CONSIDERATION WAS DIRECTLY PAID TO THEM. THEREFORE, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEI VED SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS DIRECTLY PAID TO SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND OTHERS WHO WERE OTHERWISE HER LOAN CRE DITORS. THUS, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT: I. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A PROPERTY MENTIONED ABOVE AS A GIFT VIDE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DATED 02-03-1981. II. SHE EXECUTED A REGISTERED SALE CUM GPA DATED 28 -09-2007 IN FAVOUR OF SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS ACCEPTING CONSIDERATION OF RS. 46 LAKHS. THE ABOVE TWO DOCUMENTS ARE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. T HUS, THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD AWAY THE PROPERTY TH ROUGH SALE CUM GPA DATED 28-09-2007 FOR RS. 46 LAKHS. THUS, TH E ASSESSEE CEASED TO BE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS HAVE BECOME TITLE HOLDE RS. THERE MAY BE SOME PROBLEM WITH REGARD TO ADJUSTMENT OF SA LE CONSIDERATION. BUT, THOSE MATTERS CANNOT ALTER THE LEGAL TITLE HELD BY SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS OVER THE PROPERTY AS LONG AS THE SALE CUM GPA DATED 28-09-2007 SUBSIS T. FURTHER, CONDUCT OF THE TITLE HOLDERS I.E., EXECUTI ON OF SALE DEED BY THEMSELVES WITHOUT BRINGING SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA AS A SIGNATORY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED DATED 25-01- 2010 CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THEY BECAME ABSOLUTE OWNERS O F THE PROPERTY IN THE LIGHT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 28-0920 07 ON PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 46 LAKHS. THE CONTENTS OF THE SALE CUM GPA ALSO CLEARLY INDICATE THAT ALL RIG HTS IN THE PROPERTY WERE VESTED WITH SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENT DATED 28-09-2007 . THE AO BASING ON CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CONCLUDED TH AT SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND OTHERS WERE LOAN CREDITORS AND THEREFORE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SMT MARRI SWAROOPA. THE DOCUMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE AO IN THE P RESENT ASSESSMENT IS SALE DEED DATED 27-01-2010. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID SALE DEED INDICATE THE FOLLOWING AS TRANSFEROR S AND TRANSFEREE: TRANSFERORS 1. SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH 2. SRI T. VEERA MALLA HANUMANTH RAO 3. SRI VEERA MALLA SAHJANARAYANA 7 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD 4. SRI VEERA MALLA ANJANEYULU 5. SRI MANCHUKONDA KIRAN KUMAR TRANSFEREE 1. SRI M.BADRI NARAYANA REDDY IN THE RECITAL OF THE SAID SALE DEED IT WAS MENTION ED AS UNDER: SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA REDDY W/O SRI MARRI BADRINARAYA NA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC. :HOUSE WIFE R/O FARM HOUS E, SY.NO.12, SEETHARAMPUR, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD REPRESENTED BY HER AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA HOLDER S DOC. NO.1764 DATED 28-09-2007 SRO BOWENPALLY. FROM THE SAID DOCUMENT THE FOLLOWING FACTS CAN BE O BSERVED: 1. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TRANSFEROR OF THE PROPERT Y IN THE SAID SALE DEED. THE AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA HOLDERS I. E. SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS ONLY WERE MENTION ED AS TITLE HOLDERS OF THE PROPERTY AND TRANSFERORS. 2. SMT. M. SWAROOPA RANI DID NOT SIGN THE DOCUMENT AS SE CEASED TO BE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF SALE CUM CPA DATED 28-09-2007. IN THIS CONNECTION KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE D EFINITION OF TRANSFER MENTIONED U/S 2(47) OF THE I.T. ACT AND AS PER DEFINITION TRANSFER INCLUDES SALE. FURTHER, THE TRANSFER OF PR OPERTY SHOULD BE BETWEEN TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE. AS ALREADY ME NTIONED THE SAID SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010 DID NOT CONTAIN THE SIGNATURE OF SMT. M. SWAROOPA AS SHE WAS NOT HAVING ANY OWNER SHIP RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY AND SHE WAS NOT A PARTY FO R THAT TRANSACTION. THUS, SHE WAS NOT A TRANSFEROR OF THE SAID PROPERTY SOLD THROUGH DOCUMENT DATED 25-01-2010. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO SCOPE TO INVO KE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE I.T. ACT WITH REFER ENCE TO DOCUMENT DATED 25-01-2010 . THE AO WITHOUT TAKING THOSE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATIO N, MAINLY, THE FACT THAT SHE WAS NOT A TRANSFEROR OF THE PROPE RTY IN THE DOCUMENT DATED 25-01-2010 MADE HER LIABLE FOR CAPIT AL GAIN TAX IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER MADE THROUGH THAT DOCUME NT WHICH IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE. C. AT PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO OBSERVE D THAT THE SALE CUM GPA HOLDERS I.E., SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND OTHERS BACKED OUT FROM THE TRANSACTION AND THEY HAVE TAKEN THEIR MONEY BACK AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT SMT. M.SWAROO PA HAS 8 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SRI B.N.REDDY AND THEREFORE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS TAXABLE IN HER CASE ONLY. IN THIS CONNECTION KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO PARA 1 OF THE SALE DEED DATED25-012010 WHICH READS AS UNDER: '1. THAT IN PURSUANCE OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION O F RS. 52,54,700/-, THE VENDOR HAS ALREADY RECEIVED ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 52,54,700/- IN THE FOLLOWING M ANNER FROM THE VENDEE, FOR WHICH THE VENDORS HEREBY ADMIT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND RE LEASE THE VENDEE FROM FUTURE LIABILITY ON THIS SALE TRANSACTI ON. AND OUT OF ABOVE SALE CONSIDERATION, THE VENDEE PAI D A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS TO THE VENDOR BY WAY OF HOUSING LOAN S ANCTION TO THE VENDEE BY THE REPCO HOMES FINANCE LTD. VIDE BY THEIR CHEQUE NO.414891 OF RS. 10 LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF THE V ENDOR NO.1 VEERA MALLA HANUMANTH RAO, CHEQUE NO.414893 OF RS 1 0 LAKHS IN FAVOUR VENDOR NO.3 VEERA MALLA SATYANARAYA NA, CHEQUE NO.414894 OF RS. 10 LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF VENDO R NO.4 VEERA MALLA ANJANEYULU, CHEQUE NO.414895 OF RS. 10 LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF VENDOR NO.5 MANCHUKONDA KIRAN KUMAR ALL C HEQUES DATED 25-01-2010 DRAWN ON KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., S. R.NAGAR BRANCH, HYDERABAD. AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 2,54,700/- PAID BY VEND EE TO VENDORS TOWARDS FULL AND FINAL SALE CONSIDERATION I N RESPECT OF SALE OF SAID PROPERTY'. FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY SRI B.N .REDDY OBTAINED A LOAN FROM REPCO HOMES FINANCE LTD AND PA ID CONSIDERATION TO VARIOUS SALE CUM GPA HOLDERS AS ME NTIONED ABOVE. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT SRI B.N.REDDY PURCHAS ED THE PROPERTY FROM SRI VEERA MALLAIAH AND OTHERS BY OBTA INING A LOAN FROM REPCO FINANCE LTD. IN THAT PROCESS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY CONTEXT. BUT, THE A O MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION PA ID TO SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA WAS TAKEN BACK BY SRI VEERA MALLAIAH AND OTHERS AND THEY HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY IN THE TRANSAC TION. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THE AO COULD COME TO SUCH A CONCLUS ION WHEN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT ITSELF WAS CLEAR THAT THE S ALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY SRI B.N. REDDY TO SRI VE ERA MALLAIAH AND OTHERS THROUGH CHEQUES BY OBTAINING A LOAN FROM REPCO HOMES FINANCE LTD. FURTHER, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR T HE AO TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT SMT. M.SWAROOPA SOLD HER PROPERTY TO SRI B.N.REDDY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY SRI VEERA MALLAIAH AND OTHERS AND THE NAME OF SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA DID NOT FIGURE IN THE D OCUMENT AS A SELLER. 9 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD \ D. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN FUTURE IF SRI B.N.REDDY SELLS THE PROPERTY THE COST OF ACQUISITION WILL BE RS. 52,54, 700/-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMENTS OF THE AO ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE NO DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ARE MADE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DETAILS SUBMISSIONS THE F OLLOWING FACTS WOULD EMERGE: I. THE ASSESSEE GOT THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.1-9-64 PEDDA TOKATTA, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD AS A GIFT FROM HE R HUSBAND SRI BADRI NARAYANA REDDY THROUGH DOCUMENT NO.677/81 DATED 2-03-1981. II. SHE SOLD THE PROPERTY THROUGH REGISTERED SALE C UM GPA DATED 28-09-2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 46 LAKHS. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO SRI VEERA MALIA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS. III. SRI VEERA MALIA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS SOLD THE PROPERTY THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 52,54,700/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SAID SALE DEED. IV. THE ASSESSEE CEASED TO HAVE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OV ER THE PROPERTY IN THE LIGHT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 28-09-2 007 AND ON RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. SHE WAS ALSO NOT A S IGNATORY IN THE SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010. V. SRI B.N.REDDY MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A LOAN FOR PURCHA SE OF THE SAME PROPERTY. BUT, THE FACT IS THAT HE PURCHASED T HE SAME BY PAYING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 52,54,700/- TO THE SALE CUM GPA HOLDERS AND GOT REGISTERED THE PROPERTY THR OUGH A SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010. VI. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE SALE TRANSACTION EVIDENCED BY THE SALE DEED 25-01-2010. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT CAPITAL GAIN A CCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR TAX IN THE LIGHT OF SALE DEED D ATED 25-01- 2010. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO LEVYING OF TAX ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HE LIGHT OF SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010 HAS NO BASIS THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO MAY BE DELETED. 10 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE'S ALTERNATIVE CLAIM AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PROPERTY THROUGH REGISTER ED GIFT DEED VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 677/81 DT. 22-03-1981 FROM H ER HUSBAND SRI MARRI B.NARAYANA REDDY FOR THE HOUSE BE ARING NO. 1-9-64 PEDDA TOKATTA, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD, ADMEASURING 426 SQ. YARDS WITH EXISTING TILED HOUSE VALUED AT RS. 35,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, SHE ENTERED INTO AN AGR EEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA WITH SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OT HERS VIDE DOCUMENT NO.764/2007 DATED 28-07-2007 FOR THE SAME PROPERRF. LATER ON SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS (AS A GPA HOIDER) HAVE EXECUTED A REGISTERED SALE DEED VIDE D OCUMENT NO. 111/210 DT. 25-01-2010 IN FAVOUR OF SRI BADRI N ARAYANA REDDY(HUSBAND OF SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA). THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO SRI BADRI NAR AYANA REDDY IS THE SAME PROPERTY WHICH WAS GIFTED TO HIS WIFE SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA THE ASSESSEE ON 22-03-1981 THROUGH G IFT DEED. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERT Y WHICH WAS GIFTED BY HER HUSBAND ON 02-03-1981 THE SAME IS TRA NSFERRED TO HER HUSBAND BY WAY OF SALE DEED AND THERE IS NO GAI N ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS TRANSACTION. IN THIS CONNECTION KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOVINDARAJULY & OTHERS (173 ITR 112) WHILE DELIVERI NG THE JUDGMENT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'CLUBBING OF INCOME U/S 64(L)(III) - GIFT TO SPOUSE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND - SALE CONSIDERATION - INTEREST ON DEPOSIT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND GIFTED BY HUSBAND TO WIFE CAN NOT BE CLUBBED WITH HUSBANDS INCOME WHEN THERE WAS A LONG GAP OF FIVE YEARS BETWEEN GIFT AND SALE '. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS LONG GAP BETWEEN THE GIFTED PROPERTY AND SALE EXECUTED THE SALE CONSIDER ATION CANNOT BE CLUBBED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE RECEIV ED THE PROPERTY THROUGH GIFT FROM HER HUSBAND ON 22-03-198 1. LATER ON THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATE D 28- 072007, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROPERTY WAS EXECUTED SAL E DEED IN FAVOUR OF HER HUSBAND ON 25-01-2010. AS THERE IS A LONG GAP OF FIVE YEARS BETWEEN THE GIFT AND SALE. HENCE, THERE IS NO GAIN ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE JUDIC IAL DECISION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THERE IS NO LEVYING OF TAX ON 'LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO MAY BE DELETED. 11 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD 4.1 THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND SUBMISSIONS WE RE REMANDED TO THE AO AND AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 11/08/2015 S UBMITTED THAT THE DECISION TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF A SSESSEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND PUTFO RTH BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES NO CONSIDERATION. THE SAME WAS FO RWARDED TO ASSESSEES COMMENTS AND ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED HER COMMENTS ON 27/08/2015 STATING THAT AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION BA SED ON CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE , MERE ASSUMPTIONS CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING CAPIT AL GAINS. 4.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO A ND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 8. THE GROUND NOS.2 TO 5 ARE WITH REGARD TO THE ADD ITION OF RS. 50,55,888/- MADE BY THE AO MAINLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA TRANSFERRED PROPERTY TO HER HUSBAND SRI B.N.REDDY THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THE APPE LLANT RECEIVED MONEY FROM SRI B.N.REDDY. IN THIS CASE, TH E APPELLANT SUBMITTED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THAT, VIDE GIFT DEED DATED 22-03-1981, THE PROPERTY WAS GIFTED BY SRI M. B.N.REDDY IN 'FAVOUR OF SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA VIDE REGISTERED D OCUMENT DATED 28-072007. THE APPELLANT ENTERED INTO SALE CU M GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WITH SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND 4 OTHERS ON 29-08-2007 AND THEY HAVE BACKED FROM TRANSACTION AN D TAKEN BACK THE MONEY WHICH WAS PAID TO SMT M. SWAROOPA. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTION HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY AND FINALLY THE CONCLUSION IS SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA HAS SOLD THE PROP ERTY TO SRI B.N.REDDY AND THEREBY LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE A RRIVED. THUS THESE FOUR GPA HOLDERS SOLD THE PROPERTY AGAIN TO SRI M. B.N.REDDY, VIDE DOCUMENT NO.111/210 DATED 25-01-201 0. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS OF THE FINAL SALE DEE D DATED 25-01- 2010, I FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. THIS DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIA H AND OTHERS AND THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SRI B.N.REDDY. IN THE ORIGINAL SALE CUM GPA DOCUMENT, THE APPELLANT SIGNE D THE DOCUMENT. THAT MEANS AS PER THE SALE CUM GPA DOCUME NT, THE APPELLANT LOST HER RIGHTS AND SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND FOUR OTHERS. FURTHER, AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 25-01-2010, SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND OTHE RS SOLD THE PROPERTY THROUGH REGISTERED DOCUMENTS AFTER SIGNING PROPERLY TO SRI B.N.REDDY. THAT MEANS AS ON THIS DATE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THE APPELLANT IS NOWHERE IN THE PICTUR E. ONLY SRI VEERA MALLA KISTAIAH AND FOUR OTHERS RECEIVED SALE 12 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD CONSIDERATION AS PER THE DOCUMENT. HENCE, THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE AS OBSERVE D AND ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS DELETED AND THE APPEAL ON THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS ON FAC TS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS AS THE SAME WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND WERE DULY CONSIDERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO NEW EVIDENCE WAS BROU GHT ON RECORD WHICH QUALIFY UNDER RULE 46A(1) OF I.T. RULE S, 1961. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) EVEN AFTER ALLOWING THE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS, OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, AS THE ASSESS EE IS THE TRANSFEROR OF PROPERTY AND NO TRANSFER IN FAVOUR OF GPA HOLDERS HAS TAKEN PLACE EITHER IN TERMS OF SEC. 2(47)(V) OF THE I.T. ACT OR IN TERMS OF SEC.53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT UPTO 25.01.2010. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 6. LD. DR BESIDES RELYING ON THE ORDER OF AO, RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SU RAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SLP (C) NO. 13917 OF 2009. 7. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALSO RELIED ON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOVINDA RAJULU (DECD.) & OTHERS, [1988] 173 ITR 112. 8. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSELS. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE TWO DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF MAKING ADDITION AND HEAVILY RELIED ON BY THE AO ARE SALE D EED DATED 25/01/2010 AND SALE-CUM-GPA, DATED 28/07/2007. BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS ARE REGISTERED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE 13 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD HAS ENTERED INTO SALE-CUM-GPA WITH MR. KISTAIAH AND OTHERS AND AGREED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 47 LAKH AND RECEI VED 46 LAKHS. WITH REGARD TO BALANCE OF RS. 1 LAKH, THERE IS NO EVIDEN CE OF ANY RECEIPT NOR THERE IS ANY SALE DEED TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACT ION AS PER THE ABOVE AGREEMENT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED M AJOR PORTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND AS PER THE VARIOUS CLAUSES O F THE AGREEMENT, THE GPA HOLDERS WILL GOVERN THE PROPERTY AND RECEIV E THE RENT. IT SHOWS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS A LREADY PASSED ON TO THE GPA HOLDERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS N O CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY. 8.1 SECONDLY, ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 25/01/2010, IT CLEARLY INDICATES IN PAGE 2 OF THE AGREEMENT AS FOL LOWS: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, THE VENDOR IS THE SOLE AND ABSOLUTE OWNER S AND POSSESSORS OF CLEAR MARKETABLE TITLE. HOUSE BEARING NOS. `-9-64 TO 66 (EXCLUDING 2 ND FLOOR) TOGETHER WITH UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND ADMEASURING 286 SQ.YARDS OR 239.09 SQ.MTRS. (OUT OF 426 SQ.YDS) ALONG WITH BUILT UP AREA OF 3834 SQ.FTS, SI TUATED AT PEDDA THOKATTA, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT (MOREFULLY DESCRIBED AT SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY BELO W) HAVING ACQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF REGISTERED GIFT SETTLEMENT DE ED DOCT. NO. 677 OF 1981, DT. 28-09-2007 AT SRO BOWENPALLY, HERE INAFTER CALLED AND REFERRED AS SAID PROPERTY. AND WHEREAS, THE CLAIMANTS OF DOCT. NO. 1764 OF 200 7 DT. 28- 09-2007 AT SRO BOWENPALLY HEREIN DECLARES THAT EXEC UTANT IS ALIVE AND NOT REVOKED THE SAME AND THE DOCT. NO. 17 64/07 IS STILL EXISTING AND THEY HAVE GOT ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO EXECUTE THIS SALE DEED AND NONE ELSE. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE VENDORS ARE MR. KISTAIAH AND OTHERS BY VIRTUE OF DEED 1764 OF 2007, DTD. 28/09/2 007 AND THE DEED IS STILL ALIVE, NOT REVOKED. IT CLEARLY INDICATES T HAT THE CLAIMANTS ARE GPA HOLDERS AND NOT THE ASSESSEE NOR THEY REPRESENT ED THE ASSESSEE. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD NOT THE ASSUMPTIONS OR PRESUMPTIONS OF THE A O. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND TOOK LOAN FROM REPCO BANK AND TH E SAME WAS 14 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD PAID DIRECTLY TO THE VENDORS ACCOUNT AND WHATEVER R EMAINING BALANCE WAS ALSO SETTLED TO THEM. AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANYTHING CONTRARY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDIRECTLY BENEFITTE D IN THIS TRANSACTION OR THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS REDIRECTED TO THE ASS ESSEE OR HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY RELYING ON THE ASSUMPTIONS AND JUST BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEES HUSBAND, I T DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE EXISTS SOME KIND OF FOUL TRANSACTION AND WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE AOS CONT ENTION, AO CANNOT PRESUME FACTS. MOREOVER, LD. DR RELIED ON SWARAJ LA MPS & INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) CASE, AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN, G PA SALES CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED AS DEEDS OF TITLE, EXCEPT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF SECTION 53A OF THE TP ACT. BY CONSIDERING THE ABOVE RATIO, IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND ALLOWED THE VENDEE TO ADMINISTER THE PROPERTY, IT AMOUNTS TO TRANSFER OF TITLE U/S 53A OF THE TP ACT. HENCE, THE ABOVE DECISION IS IN FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND MO REOVER, RULE WILL COME INTO PICTURE WHEN NEW EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD, BUT, IN THIS CASE, ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IT IS THE WISDOM OF THE CIT(A) TO ACCEPT OR REJECT CONSIDERING THE LEGALITY OF THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) VICE PRESIDENT AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. KV` 15 ITA NO. 1339/H/15 MARRI SWAROOPA, SECBAD COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD 10(1), ROOM NO. 516, AC GUARDS, IT T OWERS, HYDERABAD. 2) SMT. MARRI SWAROOPA, SURVEY NO. 12, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) -4, HYDERABAD. 4 PR. CIT - 6, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE